Jim,

The article can be found at:
http://www.individual.com/frames/story.shtml?story=c0720309.8zf

Think of this scenario.   Management has come to you and said "I'm
worried.  So much of our critical IT infrastructure is dependant on a
outdated system."

"Quite the contrary", you reply, "the HP e3000 is alive and well and
continues to get active attention from HP."    And so you convince
management that their IT department is in good hands and they go away
happy.

Happy that is, until they read not one but several articles quoting HP
officials who never mention the HP 3000.    Now management comes back
and says "I've read the articles and the HP 3000 is never mentioned.
At least IBM stands behind their proprietary operating systems."
Their response falls just short of asking "why did you have to lie to
us?"     It is really hard (or impossible) to come up with a response
that doesn't sound a bit lame and/or suspicious.

Your management is in about the same boat as industry analysts and
journalists.   On the one hand they hear a select group talking about
HP's commitment and great plans for the HP e3000 and on the other they
hear prominent spokesmen who rarely even acknowlege that the platform
still exists.   It's easy to hypothesize that there is a internal
split inside HP and that the fate of the HP e3000 really depends on
which side wins the war.   That is all supposition of course - but
suppostion that is consistent with the publicly known facts.

This is the kind of bind, I suggest, that HP's marketing strategy puts
us all in.

- Cortlandt







Jim Phillips <[log in to unmask]> wrote in message
news:39860856$1_2@skycache-news.fidnet.com...
> Okay, I just have to speak up after Cortlandt's excellent post.  I
have not
> read the article in question, so I won't comment on what Ann
Livermore did
> or did not say.
>
> BUT:
>
> Our company is committed to the HP3000 for the foreseeable future.
By
> committed, I mean that all new development is being examined
critically to
> see if it should occur on the HP3000 first, before we look at other
> platforms.  Do we run other operating systems?  Sure, we do.  But
aside from
> the accounting system (covered in detail before), there is nothing
> mission-critical except for the HP3000.  Right now, we run our
MRP/ERP
> system that handles everything from sales order entry to invoicing,
product
> specification to capacity planning, plus labor efficiency reporting,
all on
> the HP3000.  When we deployed a shop floor interface for the
production line
> operators, whilst the UI is written in VB and running on Wintel
machines,
> there wasn't any question of using the HP3000 as the data base
server.  And
> in fact, we could have written the whole thing using terminals and
the
> HP3000 as the application server as well.
>
> When we needed a machine maintenance system, again the HP3000 was
the
> platform of choice.
>
> SO:
>
> Am I worried about HP and it's committment to the 3000?  You bet!
Not that
> it would immediately kill us as it would some vendors, but it would
cause
> lots more work for us in porting and replicating applications to
another
> environment.  Not to mention that we run this entire company (around
$100
> million per year in sales) with four plants located in two states,
> supporting over 80 users, with only two IS people.  That's it!  Two
people
> handling the help desk, supporting PC users, doing development and
> maintenance, data base administrator, operator, system
administration, etc.
> Try doing that with any other platform.
>
> And for those of you wondering what other platforms I've experience
with:
> DEC VAX, DG, Pr1me, System 38, IBM, Burroughs, and Unisys
mainframes.  Gee,
> you know, those first three are out of business, aren't they?
>
> THEN:
>
> The questions come to me:  Why isn't HP marketing the HP3000 as
agressively
> as IBM markets its AS/400 line?  Can the HP3000 be "all things to
all
> people"?  Probably not, but it can be "most things to most people".
> Internet server?  No problem!  Data base server?  No problem!
Application
> server?  No problem?
>
> HP, my plea is this:  Don't forget us.  We may not be doing the
"sexy" thing
> (like a friend of mine at Office Max, who has spent untold millions
trying
> to get SAP R3 up and running), we may not all be deploying
e-commerce
> solutions on the web, but we are getting the work done.  The
> bread-and-butter stuff that needs to be done.  The stuff that pays
the bills
> and gives us just enough competitive edge to stay in business.
>
> And besides, we pay a lot of money to HP.  I know the entire HP3000
business
> is hardly a blip on the chart of HP's total revenue, but it's a lot
of money
> to us.
>
> If we want sexy, we'll go to Victoria's Secret.  When we want a job
done,
> we'll go to the HP3000!
>
>
> Jim Phillips                            Therm-O-Link, Inc.
> MIS Manager                        1295 Henry Brennan
> Voice: 915-860-9933             El Paso, Texas
> Fax: 915-860-9936                 79936
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Web: www.tolwire.com
>